Re: [OSM-talk] When two bots go to war

Maybe there should be a general good-practice recommendation / policy that bots running in this fashion to keep things in sync should only automatically add/update/remove a tag that they've previously set if the current state/value in OSM is unchanged from the last state/value that the bot set.

Re: [Talk-GB] UK street addressing

As others have said, having some uniform national scheme of places/areas that each address is assigned to is useful for anyone using addresses. No-one outside the local area will know which postal districts correspond to which areas, or even where many remote postal areas are. Local authorities

Re: [Talk-GB] UK street addressing

On Mon, 21 Dec 2020 at 12:02, Alan Mackie wrote: > > I struggle with what to call the in that example. > > A recent suggestion for named terraces was to use addr:street= > and addr:parentstreet=, but if the relates the > whole building to to parentstreet, then reconstructing an address seems

Re: [Talk-GB] Anglican churches

On Fri, 18 Dec 2020 at 20:07, Donald Noble wrote: > Forgive me if I've missed it somewhere, but what do the different colours > represent on the nameless places of worship page? It's not documented anywhere at the moment, but the different coloured markers on the "nameless" maps at e.g.

Re: [Talk-GB] UK street addressing

Like it or not, in the UK addresses are defined by Royal Mail. They're introduced the concept of a "postal town", and this is one of the few common elements that each address must always have. Once you accept that the Post Town is intended to be a nearby significant place (to help with delivery

Re: [Talk-GB] Anglican churches

On Fri, 18 Dec 2020 at 18:05, Sean Blanchflower wrote: > In case anyone's interested I set myself the lockdown project of ensuring all > the active Anglican churches in England are mapped consistently in OSM, and > have gotten as far as I realistically can for the moment. > > The net result is

Re: [Talk-GB] Bridleway across field

On Tue, 8 Dec 2020 at 13:18, Dave F via Talk-GB wrote: > > https://snipboard.io/scrm5R.jpg > > There you go, free of any supposed copyright infringement. Not quite. Before we're able to use any third-party data in OSM, we need to verify that it is available under a suitable licence. So you would

Re: [Talk-GB] Bridleway across field

On Tue, 8 Dec 2020 at 12:37, Dave F wrote: > On 08/12/2020 12:08, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) wrote: > > On Tue, 8 Dec 2020 at 09:39, Mark Lee via Talk-GB > > wrote: > >> Hello. I've just added a missing public bridleway > >> (https://www.openstreetmap.org

Re: [Talk-GB] Bridleway across field

On Tue, 8 Dec 2020 at 09:39, Mark Lee via Talk-GB wrote: > Hello. I've just added a missing public bridleway > (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/882278479) which is detailed on the > Wiltshire Definitive Map. I see that you've put source="Wiltshire Definitive Map" in the tagging. Do you have

Re: [Talk-GB] Idea - OSMUK walkers' map application

On Sat, 5 Dec 2020 at 15:29, Nick Whitelegg via Talk-GB wrote: > A shame really, an open, standard API - and accompanying open source clients > to the API - adopted by all councils for problem reporting would be a great > thing to have. It would indeed be great. An open standard for this

Re: [OSM-talk] I’m running for OSMF board and I’ve set up office hours for questions

On Wed, 2 Dec 2020 at 21:56, Michal Migurski wrote: > First, the text of the ODbL is explicit about “reasonably calculated” > awareness. FB believes its maps comply with this. The ODbL does not require > that “every” person see the attribution. It requires that “any” person can. I believe that

Re: [OSM-talk] I’m running for OSMF board and I’ve set up office hours for questions

On Wed, 2 Dec 2020 at 03:41, Michal Migurski wrote: > Facebook is in compliance with the ODbL license which requires that > attribution be “reasonably calculated to make any Person that uses, views, > accesses, interacts with, or is otherwise exposed to the Produced Work aware” > of OSM’s

Re: [Talk-GB] High quality NLS imagery of buildings and HOUSENUMBERS (!) available in London (and Scotland). Create a tasking manger to add this?

On Tue, 1 Dec 2020 at 09:53, Ken Kilfedder wrote: > IpswichMapper forwarded me this note, apparently received from NLS via an > enquiry made by Rob-from-OSMF: > > > “I wish I could give you better news on the 1940s OS maps of south-east > > England. > > Unfortunately, you’re right, they were

Re: [Talk-GB] Recycling Points

On Sat, 28 Nov 2020 at 12:35, Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-GB wrote: > 28 Nov 2020, 10:48 by robert.whittaker+...@gmail.com: > > I guess the problem is that recycling_type=container is being used > both for individual containers and for mini sites with a group of > containers. > > Is it really a

Re: [Talk-GB] Recycling Points

On Fri, 27 Nov 2020 at 09:42, Jez Nicholson wrote: > Agreed, "point" sucks as a value, I won't use itmy fundamental reason for > it not being a 'centre' was size, but a Recycling Point _could_ be seen as a > mini Recycling Centre that only accepts recyclable waste. You can see a >

Re: [Talk-GB] UPRN wiki page

On Wed, 18 Nov 2020 at 10:42, Jez Nicholson wrote: > My personal opinion is that UPRNs never apply to a road or road section. They > apply to something that you cannot see, like a grit bin that is no longer > there. It's definitely possible for UPRNs to be assigned to streets. I think you can

Re: [Talk-GB] "Survey Me" Tool Update

On Sat, 7 Nov 2020 at 13:02, ael via Talk-GB wrote: > On Sat, Nov 07, 2020 at 12:11:42PM +0000, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) wrote: > > For anyone who's interested, I've just updated my "Survey Me" tool at > > https://osm.mathmos.net/survey/ . > > I took a l

[Talk-GB] "Survey Me" Tool Update

For anyone who's interested, I've just updated my "Survey Me" tool at https://osm.mathmos.net/survey/ . It now includes food retail chains where OSM mapping doesn't agree with the "Retail Points" dataset from Geolytix ( https://blog.geolytix.net/tag/retail-points/ ). The idea of "Survey Me" is

Re: [Talk-GB] OSM UK's first tile layer

On Sat, 17 Oct 2020 at 00:22, Rob Nickerson wrote: > Just in time for the AGM, I have just published OSM UK's first tile layer. No > don't get too excited it is not a full map render. Instead I have produced a > very simple tiling of the Land Registry polygon data now that this is under > the

Re: [Talk-GB] Q4 2020 Quarterly Project: Defibrillators

On Fri, 9 Oct 2020 at 16:20, Gareth L wrote: > The UK quarterly project for Q4 has been selected as Defibrillators. > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/UK_2020_Q4_Project:_Defibrillators > > A check on taginfo shows there are 4181 nodes and ways with > emergency=defibrillator in Great

Re: [Tagging] OHV greater than 50 inches (wide)

On Tue, 1 Sep 2020 at 21:33, Mike Thompson wrote: > In specifying access constraints for the roads it manages, the US Forest > service makes a distinction between ATVs, highway vehicles, and "OHVs > 50"." > The first two categories correspond to the tags motorcar=* and atv=* I think, > but I

Re: [Talk-GB] New Bing Imagery

On Wed, 19 Aug 2020 at 15:36, SK53 wrote: > This isn't necessarily true. If you open any OS Open Data product in QGIS one > is now confronted by a bewildering array of ways of converting from the OSGB > national grid co-ordinates to WGS84. > > The optimum one currently uses the 2015 file of

Re: [Talk-GB] National Cycle Network removal/reclassification

On Sat, 18 Jul 2020 at 14:49, Richard Fairhurst wrote: > Sustrans' own website mapping has just been updated to take account of this, > which you can see at https://osmaps.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/ncn . The dashed > lines are reclassified, while some sections have been removed entirely. > > It's

Re: [Talk-GB] Street-name toids

On Wed, 12 Aug 2020 at 16:56, SK53 wrote: > OpenRoads from the Ordnance Survey contains a field containing the toid for > the street name. I wonder if we should include these alongside usrn & uprn. > They may be more useful than either for gathering complex roads which share a > name. I'd

Re: [Talk-GB] Electric vehicle charging points

On Tue, 21 Jul 2020 at 23:12, Nick wrote: > Could the data be included in https://osm.mathmos.net/survey/ ? I had a quick look at the National Charge Point Registry data a while ago. I got as far as plotting a map showing both the OSM charge points and those from the Registry:

[Talk-GB] UPRN Locations Map

I'm not completely sure if/how we can best make use of the new OS OpenData (UPRNs, USRNs and related links) in OpenStreetMap, but as a first step I've set up a quick slippy map with the UPRN locations shown: https://osm.mathmos.net/addresses/uprn/ (zoom in to level 16 to show the data) The UPRN

Re: [Talk-GB] Land Registry INSPIRE data - 1 July OGL release

On Fri, 26 Jun 2020 at 20:50, Rob Nickerson wrote: > Looks like 1 July will be a big open data release day. Not only do we get the > USRN and UPRN data, but the land registry data will also be released: > > https://www.gov.uk/government/news/inspire-data-to-be-shared-under-open-terms > > Should

Re: [Talk-GB] PRoW archive

On Mon, 11 May 2020 at 20:30, Philip Barnes wrote: > On Mon, 2020-05-11 at 20:50 +0200, BD wrote: >> I was looking at the discussion about PRoW and how to request the >> information from local council. I wonder if there is a comprehensive >> list/central location where we have stored

Re: [Talk-GB] Lancashire prow_ref format (Was: Public Rights of Way - legal vs reality)

On Mon, 11 May 2020 at 14:12, nathan case wrote: > Thanks Tony and Adam for your responses. It is good to know that LCC have > released the parish IDs in the data as well. Makes a lookup table easy to > produce. > > It still remains that if I were a casual mapper and wanted to add an unmapped

[Talk-GB] Lancashire prow_ref format (Was: Public Rights of Way - legal vs reality)

This may have got lost in the discussion about highway=no, but I'd like to get some feedback on what prow_ref format is best to use in Lancashire. See my previous message below: On Mon, 4 May 2020 at 19:23, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) wrote: > The format of the Right of Way numbers se

Re: [Talk-GB] Public Rights of Way - legal vs reality

On Tue, 5 May 2020 at 19:33, Mike Baggaley via Talk-GB wrote: > >Highway=no seems acceptable to me where a path is permanently physically > >blocked by a building or such-like. We're not serving anyone by directing > >people into wals. I do, however, disagree with its use to tag definitive >

Re: [Talk-GB] Public Rights of Way - legal vs reality

On Tue, 5 May 2020 at 11:54, Adam Snape wrote: > I'd consider this particular proposed use of highway=no to mean "there is a > public highway here but there's no visible path on the ground" to be a > somewhat country-specific and counter-intuitive tagging practice. It's > certainly being

Re: [Talk-GB] Public Rights of Way - legal vs reality

On Mon, 4 May 2020 at 14:13, nathan case wrote: > Thanks for your input Robert, the approach taken for routes not following the > definitive line makes sense - though does this lead to two paths being > rendered? Or does highway=no prevent this? I will also add the fixme as Tony > suggests.

Re: [Talk-GB] Public Rights of Way - legal vs reality

As a general principle, I think we should certainly map both (a) any physical paths on the ground and (b) the legal Definitive Line (though not necessarily as a highway if it isn't one). These might be separate ways if the two line differ, though they'd normally be one and the same. It would also

Re: [OSM-talk] Let's talk Attribution

On Sun, 3 May 2020 at 23:01, Kathleen Lu via talk wrote: > OSM has imported sources that are ODbL. The attribution to those sources does > not appear on the map, but rather after several clicks (usually first to the > copyright page, then the contributors page). If that's not acceptable under

Re: [OSM-talk] Let's talk Attribution

On Wed, 29 Apr 2020 at 11:22, Christoph Hormann wrote: > And what i have also said several times before is that the only way you > can consistently interpret the ODbL attribution requirement - what > Martin quoted as: > > „You must include a notice associated with the Produced Work reasonably >

Re: [Talk-GB] prow_ref format for Dorset Public Rights of Way

On Thu, 16 Apr 2020 at 15:34, Nick Whitelegg wrote: > I wasn't familiar with the situation in Dorset but MapThePaths uses the 'SE > 4/22' scheme (actually it appears as 'SE 4 22') so if people want to use MTP > as a source for prow_refs, then that would be the format to use. In general, I

[Talk-GB] prow_ref format for Dorset Public Rights of Way

I've recently been looking at increasing the coverage of my PRoW comparison tool https://osm.mathmos.net/prow/progress/ by adding new counties. In particular, I've been looking at the data from Dorset. I've hit a small issue though, in that the council uses two different formats for their Right of

Re: [Talk-GB] Q2 2020 Quarterly project GP Surgeries and health sites

On Thu, 16 Apr 2020 at 12:27, Peter Neale wrote: > I tried following the link to your proposed new source of “official” data, > but none of the 3 links to the data worked very well for me. > > Link 1: (API format) led to http 404 error. > Link 2 (CSV(TSV) format – led to http 404 error > Link

Re: [Talk-GB] Q2 2020 Quarterly project GP Surgeries and health sites

On Sun, 12 Apr 2020 at 20:40, Peter Neale wrote: > I looked up my 2 "wholesale" pharmacies on the list. Unfortunately, they are > both classed as "community", so will continue to be included in your checking > tool. > > So... ...should we: > a. Continue as we are: Plot them in OSM, tag them

Re: [Talk-GB] Q2 2020 Quarterly project GP Surgeries and health sites

On Sun, 12 Apr 2020 at 18:08, Peter Neale wrote: > As Boots' stores don't ALL have a pharmacy counter, IMHO they should be > tagged as "shop=chemist". Those that DO have a pharmacy (dispensing > prescriptions) should be additionally tagged, either with "pharmacy=yes", or > with a separate

Re: [Talk-GB] Q2 2020 Quarterly project GP Surgeries and health sites

On Sat, 11 Apr 2020 at 18:39, Dave Love wrote: > > On Thu, 2020-04-09 at 12:08 +0100, SK53 wrote: > > Robert Whittaker has a Pharmacy QA > > site > > That shows a Boots missing which I tagged as the brand from the > correction iD wanted (brand=Boots

Re: [Talk-GB] Geospatial Commission to release UPRN/ UPSN identifiers under Open Government Licence

On Thu, 9 Apr 2020 at 14:26, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) wrote: > On Thu, 9 Apr 2020 at 09:21, Tony OSM wrote: > > If the data is to be in the public domain the next step has to be tagging. > > Do we need country specific tags for these two pieces of data? > > What sh

Re: [Talk-GB] Geospatial Commission to release UPRN/ UPSN identifiers under Open Government Licence

On Thu, 9 Apr 2020 at 09:21, Tony OSM wrote: > If the data is to be in the public domain the next step has to be tagging. > Do we need country specific tags for these two pieces of data? > What should they be? Looking at taginfo, there are a number of different tags in use for UPRN values (see

Re: [Talk-GB] Town Greens

On Fri, 3 Apr 2020 at 15:20, nathan case wrote: > The two main components of the green, a wood and a grass area, are separately > mapped as such. > > Where would you add the designation tag? To the boundary or to the two main > landuse components? Or would you create a relation so that the

Re: [Talk-GB] Town Greens

On Fri, 3 Apr 2020 at 11:49, nathan case wrote: > I made a recent edit to a local area that has recently been designated a > “Town Green”. > > Edit: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/82973329 What I would do with these is to separate the legal status from the physical and usage

Re: [Talk-GB] Geospatial Commission to release UPRN/ UPSN identifiers under Open Government Licence

On Thu, 2 Apr 2020 at 22:19, RobJN wrote: > It's all a bit unclear but from what I've read it sounds like there will be > a release of the UPRN / UPSN identifiers and their associated geometries > ("coordinates" in some text). I see no reference to address data being part > of the release. There

Re: [Tagging] Addresses with PO Box, and other delivery type addresses.

On Thu, 19 Mar 2020 at 14:43, Tobias Wrede wrote: > Isn't the addr:* scheme used to describe the physical address of a > location/building/amentiy/etc.? > > PO Boxes, privat bags etc. are addresses where mail for someone residing at > said location is delivered to. > > As addr:* I would always

Re: [Tagging] Public refrigerators

On Tue, 25 Feb 2020 at 15:47, Markus wrote: > I've noticed that recycling:food= has been added [1] to > amenity=recycling wiki page with the meaning "community fridge [2] to > help reduce food waste". > > [1]: >

[Talk-GB] Stale Developments

I'd like to announce a new mini QA tool that I've put together for UK OSMers: Stale Developments: https://osm.mathmos.net/developments/ It finds OSM UK highway and landuse tags with tags values of construction, brownfield and greenfield, which haven't been edited for over a year. The idea is that

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] use OSM data to select proprietary data

On Thu, 12 Dec 2019 22:41 Kathleen Lu via legal-talk, < legal-talk@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > No, ODbL does not apply to any database that does not include OSM data. > There are two reasons. > I would argue that the dataset here does include some OSM data, as it includes (albeit limited)

Re: [Talk-GB] Lancashire prow_ref reference table

On Tue, 26 Nov 2019 at 14:32, Dave F via Talk-GB wrote: > > On 26/11/2019 12:01, Tony OSM wrote: > > to the preferred prow_ref format Adlington FP 5. > > As previous, this is not the preferred format. The format should be as > supplied by the LA, the organisation which has the *authority* to

Re: [Talk-GB] OSM-UK misunderstands the British Isles

On Wed, 13 Nov 2019 at 16:35, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > This message seems to complain > about something, but it is unclear > what is the problem. Having looked at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_Kingdom I assume the problem was that in the opening sentence under the map, the page

Re: [Talk-GB] Name Suggestion Index

On Tue, 5 Nov 2019 at 08:24, Jez Nicholson wrote: > I was wondering how iD (and Vespucci) decides what to offer as brands when I > create a new feature, or when it suggests something like "Ibis looks like a > brand with incomplete tags". The answer is the >

Re: [Talk-GB] OS Map Rules

On Mon, 4 Nov 2019 at 23:38, Andrew J wrote: > I was thinking of using a paper OS map to identify public footpaths > which are not currently on OSM, and use it to plan and navigate (map and > compass) a route along those paths. > > If I get a GPS trace (e.g. with OSMTracker) while I walk that

Re: [Talk-GB] Zebra crossings being lost in iD - how to respond

On Fri, 25 Oct 2019 at 11:45, Jez Nicholson wrote: > +1 for a bot edit My initial instinct was to say this too. But if most of these crossing=zebra tags were added by iD users who selected "Marked Crossing" and never saw the zebra tag, then how sure are we that almost all Marked Crossings in the

Re: [Talk-GB] UK Licences

On Tue, 10 Sep 2019 at 13:49, Stephen Colebourne wrote: > I'd like to see some guidance on whether data can be taken directly > from a business's website and entered directly into OSM. eg. on the > "contact us" page there is often address, postcode, phone number, > opening hours. This page >

Re: [Talk-GB] Fixing shop=yes, now it no longer renders on the default

On Thu, 5 Sep 2019 at 21:35, Mike Baggaley wrote: > Hi Robert, Looks interesting. I've signed in and had a look. However, the > first one I looked at is a petrol station, and the wiki indicates that > shop=yes is the correct tagging as an additional tag for amenity=fuel. Hence > I suggest that

Re: [Talk-GB] Fixing shop=yes, now it no longer renders on the default OSM map

On Tue, 3 Sep 2019 at 12:40, Silent Spike wrote: > Perhaps a https://maproulette.org challenge would be a good way to track the > progress of this? I've never really used Maproulette before, but I thought this would be a good opportunity to have a go. So here's my attempt at a challenge, for

Re: [Talk-GB] Copyright in OS-derived maps

On Tue, 3 Sep 2019 at 12:34, Edward Bainton wrote: > I've been sent a map by a local charity that looks after large swathes of > countryside near Peterborough. It's for their own internal use, showing the > extent of their estate. It's based on an OS map, and comes with flags > indicating

[Talk-GB] Fixing shop=yes, now it no longer renders on the default OSM map

Since version 4.22 of the Carto map style (which was deployed a few days ago), the generic shop=yes tag is no longer rendered on the default OSM-Carto map at https://www.openstreetmap.org/ . For details of the decision see https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/3697 . In Great

Re: [Talk-GB] Rowmaps importing in South Gloucestershire

On Fri, 9 Aug 2019 11:59 Dave F via Talk-GB, wrote: > > > > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Contributors#Public_Rights_of_Way_Data_from_local_councils > > . While there's nothing listed there, it's definitely not ok to use > > the data in OSM. > > Rubbish. > > Just because one person isn't

Re: [Talk-GB] Rowmaps importing in South Gloucestershire

On Thu, 8 Aug 2019 at 23:06, Neil Matthews wrote: > In light of some recent edits in South Gloucestershire -- is it ok to > import unsurveyed footpaths based simply on rowmaps data? Based on the licensing information at http://www.rowmaps.com/datasets/SG/ my view would be "no". According to

Re: [Talk-GB] Automated Code-Point Open postcode editing (simple cases only)

On Tue, 16 Jul 2019 at 22:20, ndrw6 wrote: > Over past several months I've been adding postcodes from Code-Point > Open. I've streamlined the procedure a bit, so I can now add the tags > without spelling out every single one of them, but it is still a manual > and labour intensive process: > >

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Copy information from official business website (WAS: Proposal for a revision of JA:Available Data)

On Fri, 5 Jul 2019 at 21:18, tomoya muramoto wrote: > I ask a simple question. May I copy the information of the TESCO Boston > Superstore to OSM? > https://www.tesco.com/store-locator/uk/?bid=2108 > > This website contains information such as > - addr=* > - phone=* > - opening_hours=* > -

Re: [Talk-GB] Adjacent nature reserves

On Wed, 26 Jun 2019 at 21:08, Brian Prangle wrote: > The whole area needs simplification to replace multiple overlaid ways with > multipolygon relations. I'm curious about what you mean here. Are you referring to replacing (in a simple example) two square closed ways that share a common edge,

Re: [Talk-GB] OS Open Greenspace tileset

On Fri, 14 Jun 2019 at 10:24, Richard Fairhurst wrote: > I've put together a simple tileset showing greenspace areas from Ordnance > Survey's recent OS Open Greenspace release. The data is released under the > standard OS open licence therefore suitable for tracing in OSM. > > Many features are

Re: [Talk-GB] Preston Park, Brighton

On Tue, 4 Jun 2019 at 11:15, Jez Nicholson wrote: > I have to admit that Preston Park is my personal micromapping playground. I > walk the hound there nearly every day and I can capture excruciating detail > (so shoot me!). >

Re: [Talk-GB] Electric car charging points

On Thu, 16 May 2019 at 21:31, BD wrote: > Some time ago I came across "National Charge Point Registry", which can be > found here: > https://data.gov.uk/dataset/1ce239a6-d720-4305-ab52-17793fedfac3/national-charge-point-registry > > I wonder if we could import that data into OSM? I'm sure that

Re: [Talk-GB] OSMappers meeting in Norfolk

On Sun, 12 May 2019 at 20:31, Rob Nickerson wrote: > I hope the Norfolk event went well yesterday. I hope to see some more in the > future. Yes, I think it went well, and many thanks to Nora for taking the initiative and organising it. I've put together a quick wiki page for what will hopefully

[Talk-GB] Use of amenity=university within the University of Cambridge

I've noticed that there are rather a lot of amenity=university objects in Cambridge, most of which seem to be on individual buildings rather than actual universities or even university sites. http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/HLV This seems to be in line with the tagging scheme described at

Re: [Talk-GB] Common Land has stopped rendering

On Sat, 16 Mar 2019 at 12:55, Edward Catmur via Talk-GB wrote: > Any conclusion on how to tag them now? > > Perhaps leisure=park, park=common? For places in the UK that are actually registered common land, then I'd suggest using designation=common_land to denote that fact, as it's an official

[Talk-GB] OSM Tool Updates

Just a quick message to let people know about a few recent updates to my OSM UK tools: * I've added a new class of objects to "Survey Me!" -- a tool to help mappers find local issues in need of a ground survey. OSM objects with no name=* tag where one would be expected are now shown with deep

Re: [Talk-GB] OSM Hi-vis

On Mon, 7 Jan 2019 at 23:46, Rob Nickerson wrote: > OSM UK are now taking orders for high-vis vests. Show your support for > OpenStreetMap by ordering one or more today at: > > https://osmuk.org/product/osm-uk-hi-vis-vest/ Based on the sample you have, do you have any advice over the sizes?

Re: [Talk-GB] Postcodes

On Fri, 9 Nov 2018 at 17:08, Adam Snape wrote: > My conclusion from this is that we can safely map postcodes to the building > where their centroids are placed, perhaps avoiding doing so (or adding > FIXMEs) on brand new developments. There is one gotcha to that, which is that PO box

Re: [Talk-GB] Plumb Center (etc)

On Tue, 30 Oct 2018 at 17:17, Ed Loach wrote: > After spotting that the Clacton store has re-branded to Wolseley I > noticed on their website [1] this is national: > "Wolseley replaces these 5 brands: Plumb Center, Parts Center, Drain > Center, Pipe Center, Climate Center" (logos replaced by

Re: [Talk-GB] Facebook Map Query - Thames rendered as Thanames

On Fri, 26 Oct 2018 at 01:44, Steve Doerr wrote: > A user on the Facebook group 'UK Places Editors' has commented on the > fact that some maps on Facebook pages in the vicinity of Putney Bridge > (London) show the River Thames as 'Thanames'. See, for example, >

Re: [Talk-GB] Mapping Shropshire's rights of way

On Tue, 4 Sep 2018 at 10:56, James wrote: > I'd like to make Geocaching in my county (Shropshire) more accessible to > those who do not have OS maps, or simply want the convenience of navigating > from a mobile device. This relies on OpenStreetMap having comprehensive > mapping of the county's

[Talk-GB] PRoW Comparison Tool Updates

I've recently made a few updates to my Public Rights of Way Comparison Tool at https://osm.mathmos.net/prow/progress/ , which people might be interested in: * I've fixed a long-standing bug that meant that each numbered right of way within a parish could only have a single type in my tool. Some

Re: [Talk-GB] New Ghosts Set and Survey Me Auto-Location Feature

On 6 August 2018 at 09:39, Philip Withnall wrote: > Thanks for the updates! A quick question about pharmacy matching: are > we supposed to add the GPhC registration number of the pharmacy to its > node/way in OSM, similarly to how we do FHRS IDs? There seems to be no > guidance for/against this

Re: [Talk-GB] New Ghosts Set and Survey Me Auto-Location Feature

On 6 August 2018 at 12:04, Richard Fairhurst wrote: > Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) wrote: >> First there's a new set of objects in my "Ghosts" tool at >> https://osm.mathmos.net/ghosts/. There are 162 still-mapped >> "Co-Op Pharmacy" branches, which shou

Re: [Talk-GB] 'D' class roads references.

On 5 August 2018 at 19:50, David Woolley wrote: > The only place for which I am aware of national legislation making certain > government publications automatically free to use is the USA. Thanks to the EU, we do however have the "Re-Use of Public Sector Information Regulations 2015"

[Talk-GB] New Ghosts Set and Survey Me Auto-Location Feature

A couple of updates to my tools that you might be interested in: First there's a new set of objects in my "Ghosts" tool at https://osm.mathmos.net/ghosts/. There are 162 still-mapped "Co-Op Pharmacy" branches, which should have been rebranded to become "Well Pharmacy" branches now. Thanks to

[Talk-GB] Updates to 'Survey Me!' tool

A couple of minor updates to my 'Survey Me!' tool at http://robert.mathmos.net/osm/survey/ to tell you about: First there is a new category of FHRS (Food Hygiene Rating System) reference mismatches. This includes items where the number in the fhrs:id=* tag doesn't match a current number in the

[Talk-GB] Documenting prow_ref formats (Was: MapthePaths & Lancashire)

On 13 July 2018 at 19:26, Andrew Black wrote: > I am pondering a similar but simpler question. I would like to add a table > listing each authority at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:prow_ref > describing the conventions used. I've been working on something like this already as part of

Re: [Talk-gb-westmidlands] [Talk-GB] Warwickshire footpaths - prow ref

On 7 July 2018 at 13:17, Rob Nickerson wrote: > I'm not sure if I will add the prow_ref as I'm not so sure it has much value > given that they are not signed on the ground. I also don't know what code to > add. Nick has it showing the Parish name/code, then a space, then the ref. I > think this

Re: [Talk-GB] Warwickshire footpaths - prow ref

On 7 July 2018 at 13:17, Rob Nickerson wrote: > I'm not sure if I will add the prow_ref as I'm not so sure it has much value > given that they are not signed on the ground. I also don't know what code to > add. Nick has it showing the Parish name/code, then a space, then the ref. I > think this

Re: [Talk-GB] New Data in PRoW Comparison Tool

On 3 July 2018 at 15:10, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) wrote: > I've just added another county -- East Sussex -- to my PRoW Comparison > Tool: http://robert.mathmos.net/osm/prow/progress/east-sussex/ Devon now added as well: http://robert.mathmos.net/osm/prow/progress/devon/ There were a

[Talk-GB] New Data in PRoW Comparison Tool

I've just added another county -- East Sussex -- to my PRoW Comparison Tool: http://robert.mathmos.net/osm/prow/progress/east-sussex/ I've also been doing a bit of updating of my table of council Rights of Way Open Data at http://robert.mathmos.net/osm/prow/open-data/ . Apart from the lines with

Re: [Talk-GB] MapThePaths - updates

On 2 July 2018 at 11:17, Roger Calvert wrote: > I have found a difference in the references given in Map The Paths my area > from that on the local authority maps, and I suspect it is universal. > > The paths are given with a 3 figure reference, but on the maps issued by the > Lake District

Re: [Talk-GB] Two new tools: 'Ghosts' and 'Survey Me'

On 11 June 2018 at 21:37, Andy Mabbett wrote: > I have the same issue; it's telling me there's an "unexpected" school at: > >https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/9568056#map=18/52.54706/-1.89224 > > It's definitely a school; I drive past it daily; and it has a web presence at: > >

Re: [Talk-GB] Two new tools: 'Ghosts' and 'Survey Me'

On 9 June 2018 at 16:02, Artur R. Czechowski wrote: > How to report false positives to the 3rd party data? Tait's Pharmacy (BD18 > 3HZ) certainly does not exist at mentioned location. Neither there is any > track it existed before or would be exist soon. >

Re: [Talk-GB] Two new tools: 'Ghosts' and 'Survey Me'

On 9 June 2018 at 15:15, Rob Nickerson wrote: > A couple other "Ghosts": I'd be happy to add both of these to http://robert.mathmos.net/osm/ghosts/ if possible and appropriate. > - Total petrol stations (I'm almost certain this brand has gone now but > struggled to find definitive proof) I

[Talk-GB] Two new tools: 'Ghosts' and 'Survey Me'

I'd like to announce two new tools, which may help people improve OSM data in the UK. The first tool is 'Ghosts': http://robert.mathmos.net/osm/ghosts/ I put this together as a result of the discussion on this list last month. The tool aims to track closed and re-named/re-branded UK shops and

Re: [Talk-GB] Council Footpath data

On 30 May 2018 at 11:37, Adam Snape wrote: > Over the coming months I'm hoping to individually clarify licensing with all > of the authorities which haven't explicitly, unambiguously and publicly > licensed their RoW data under OGL3 (and, yes, I know that's most of them). > I'll also try and get

Re: [Talk-GB] Council Footpath data

On 24 May 2018 at 14:33, Nick Whitelegg wrote: > Following on from the recent topic regarding 1900 historical footpath data, > I'd like to clarify exactly what we can and can't do currently with the > council RoWs if possible. > > a) Copy designation status from

Re: [Talk-GB] UK Quarterly Project: Post Offices

On 3 May 2018 at 11:25, SK53 wrote: > Can we please avoid changing the meaning of post office by extending it to > courier offices, and restrict it to those places which offer not only a full > service mail offering (aka Universal Postal Service), but the traditional > other

Re: [Talk-GB] UK Quarterly Project: Post Offices

On 3 May 2018 at 18:57, David Woolley <for...@david-woolley.me.uk> wrote: > On 03/05/18 17:53, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) wrote: >> >> I would use a node where the van stops, tagged with > amenity="post_office", name="Over Mobile Post Office Service&quo

Re: [Talk-GB] UK Quarterly Project: Post Offices

On 3 May 2018 at 14:02, Andy G Wood wrote: > I know one of the unmapped post offices is still "open" in my village > http://robert.mathmos.net/osm/postoffice/branch/110053 > however, it is basically a mobile van that turns up on the village green for > some hours a few days a

Re: [Talk-GB] UK Quarterly Project: Post Offices

On 2 May 2018 at 19:08, David Woolley wrote: > On 02/05/18 18:52, ael wrote: >> >> I am confused:-) How should a Royal mail local delivery office be >> tagged? It seems that it is not amenity=post_office. I notice that >> I have used post_depot once some time ago, but

  1   2   3   >